{"id":1517,"date":"2024-06-11T17:58:19","date_gmt":"2024-06-11T21:58:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1517"},"modified":"2024-06-11T17:58:19","modified_gmt":"2024-06-11T21:58:19","slug":"wisconsin-federal-court-rules-that-eeoc-racial-discrimination-suit-cannot-proceed-with-allegations-of-single-racial-slur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/06\/11\/wisconsin-federal-court-rules-that-eeoc-racial-discrimination-suit-cannot-proceed-with-allegations-of-single-racial-slur\/","title":{"rendered":"Wisconsin Federal Court Rules That EEOC Racial Discrimination Suit Cannot Proceed With Allegations Of Single Racial Slur"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Tiffany E. Alberty and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>: <\/strong>In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc.<\/em>, No. 1:22-CV-01149 (E.D. Wis. June 3, 20244), <\/em>\u00a0Judge William C. Griesbach<\/em> of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted<\/em> Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment and denied<\/a> the EEOC\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment.\u00a0 The Court reasoned that the single use of a racial slur in the workplace without direction to an African-American employee was not sufficient to show severe and pervasive harassment for a hostile work environment claim.\u00a0 The Court also held that a supervisor is not a similarly-situated comparator to a subordinate, regardless if they were subject to the same standards and engaged in similar conduct, dismissing the EEOC\u2019s wrongful termination claim. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Brian Turner, an African-American worker, for alleged violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (\u201c<\/em>Title VII\u201d)<\/em> against Lakeside Plastics, Inc. (\u201cLakeside\u201d).\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 1.\u00a0 The EEOC alleged Turner was discriminated against when he was subject to a hostile work environment and his employment with Lakeside was terminated based upon his race, or alternatively that Turner\u2019s employment termination was in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Turner was employed by temporary staffing firm QPS Employment Group (\u201cQPS\u201d) and began his employee assignment at Lakeside on June 6, 2010, as a Production Technician I.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0<\/em>at 3. \u00a0<\/em>On three separate occasions, Turner asserted that he experienced verbal harassment from another production technician named Curt Moraski.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 5-6.<\/p>\n

First, during work Turner and Moraski discussed being from Milwaukee and in their conversation Moraski commented racial slurs about his time in the area.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at 5.\u00a0 <\/em>Turner reported this conversation to one of his team leads.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Second, in an offsite incident, Turner alleged he was traveling home when Moraski pulled up, threated Turner, and directed racial slurs at Turner. \u00a0Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Finally, after the offsite incident, Turner reported to Lakeside that he did not feel comfortable working around Moraski.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 6.\u00a0 Lakeside assigned Turner to label boxes for the day with Moraski; no issues arose at that time. Id.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

On July 1, 2019, Lakeside ended Turner\u2019s assignment based on \u201cholistic considerations,\u201d including a review of his attendance records and a note from team lead, Max Berndt, that demonstrated Turner\u2019s poor performance, poor attendance, inability to take direction, and inability to get along with others.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 7-8. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em>That same day QPS informed Turner that he was terminated from his Lakeside assignment.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 8. \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Shortly thereafter, Lakeside received a complaint from Alex Adams, a white employee, made about Moraski \u201cthreatening [Adams].\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 8-9.\u00a0 Lakeside also received complaints from other employees about Moraski\u2019s behavior.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 8.\u00a0 Moraski denied making any threats against anyone.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 9.\u00a0 Moraski was subsequently terminated on Aug 1, 2019, due to his violation of Lakeside\u2019s workplace violence policy.\u00a0 Id. <\/em><\/p>\n

On Aug. 1, Lakeside advised a QPS representative that Moraski threatened additional employees, aside from Turner, around the time of Turner\u2019s employment.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 9.\u00a0 QPS inquired whether Turner could return to work at Lakeside, to which Lakeside responded that it was open to rehiring Turner.\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Following discovery, Lakeside brought a motion for summary judgment on all of the EEOC\u2019s claims and the EEOC filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to Lakeside\u2019s affirmative defenses.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 1.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court granted Lakeside\u2019s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Lakeside did not subject Turner to a hostile work environment, did not terminate Turner because of his race, and did not retaliate against Turner for his complaints of harassment.<\/p>\n

The EEOC asserted that Lakeside discriminated against Turner by subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on his race.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 10.\u00a0 The EEOC argued that Moraski\u2019s exchanges with Turner, at both on-site and off-site locations, created a hostile work environment.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Central to the EEOC\u2019s assertions was that \u201charassment involving the N-Word is sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 12.\u00a0 The Court reasoned that \u201ca single, isolated event can be found to create a hostile work environment,\u201d but the EEOC must present evidence \u201cwhich a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

In this instance, the Court disagreed that the EEOC showed Moraski\u2019s alleged use of racial slurs was sufficiently severe or pervasive.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>The Court determined Moraski \u201cdid not direct\u201d racial slurs at Turner during the conversation at Lakeside and the racial slurs directed at Turner off-site were reported to Turner\u2019s lead, who immediately took preventative measures by assigning Turner to a new work location.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 12.\u00a0 Similarly, Moraski\u2019s instruction on labeling boxes did not create \u201ca reasonable inference that any hostility Turner encountered was connected to his race.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 13.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that \u201cMoraski\u2019s conduct was undoubtedly offensive and inappropriate, and he was ultimately terminated by Lakeside based on complaints of similar behavior \u2026 but with no racially derogatory component.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that Moraski\u2019s conduct was not severe or pervasive such that a jury could reasonably conclude that Lakeside\u2019s work environment was \u201cpermeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Therefore, the Court granted Lakeside\u2019s summary judgment motion as to the EEOC\u2019s hostile work environment claim.<\/p>\n

The EEOC next asserted that Lakeside terminated Turner because of his race.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 14.\u00a0 The Court reviewed Turner\u2019s termination under the \u201cholistic approach\u201d standard relied on by the EEOC and focused on whether a reasonable jury could conclude that Turner \u201csuffered the adverse employment action because of his \u2026 protected class.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>The Court agreed with Lakeside\u2019s legitimate business reason for terminating Turner based on \u201cpoor attendance, an inability to take direction, and an inability to get along with others.\u201d\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>\u00a0In so holding, the Court determined that Lakeside took a holistic approach in reviewing Turner\u2019s performance and took Turner\u2019s attendance into consideration despite the fact that no one recommended to human resources that Turner be terminated based on his attendance.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 15.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Court granted Lakeside\u2019s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC\u2019s wrongful termination claims.<\/p>\n

The Court also granted Lakeside\u2019s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC\u2019s alternative retaliation claim and held that Lakeside had an \u201cindependently sufficient reason to terminate Turner\u2019s assignment\u201d through Turner\u2019s \u201cviolations of the attendance policy on three days.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 17-18.\u00a0 The Court further found that the EEOC could not establish retaliation on the basis that Lakeside refused to rehire Turner, because Lakeside was open to rehiring Turner, although a position was not extended.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 18.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Employers that are confronted with EEOC-initiated litigation involving allegations of race discrimination should recognize this opinion draws a fine line on what courts may consider pervasive in terms of the frequency, location, and direction of discriminatory comments.<\/p>\n

Further, from a practical standpoint, employers should ensure workplace policies are in place for employees to report any instance of discrimination, including race discrimination, and provide procedures for employers to promptly investigate those allegations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Tiffany E. Alberty and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-01149 (E.D. Wis. June 3, 20244), \u00a0Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Wisconsin Federal Court Rules That EEOC Racial Discrimination Suit Cannot Proceed With Allegations Of Single Racial Slur”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1517"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}